SKINNER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a pretrial detainee cannot seek habeas corpus relief under § 2254 and must exhaust state remedies under § 2241, and that abstention principles apply.
Petitioner, a pretrial detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming improper extradition from New Mexico. The state criminal case …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 2253(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Petitioner Robert Allen Skinner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. #5). Skinner is a pretrial detainee in the Charlotte County Jail, pending charges brought in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Charlotte County, Florida (Case No. 21-cf-1059). He claims the State of Florida cannot prosecute the ongoing criminal case because Skinner was improperly extradited from New Mexico. The state court docket reflects that Petitioner’s criminal case remains pending. As a preliminary matter, the Petition is not cognizable under § 2254 because, as a pretrial detainee, Skinner is not “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F. 3d 1049, 1059 (11th Cir. 2003). Consequently, because Skinner is a pretrial detainee, he filed the petition under § 2241. Nonetheless, Skinner is not entitled to relief under § 2241 because he does not allege or demonstrate that he has exhausted his claims in state court. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 79 (2005). Notably, federal habeas relief is not intended as a “pre-trial motion forum for state prisoners.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 493 (1973). Further, principles of equity, comity, and federalism require the Court to abstain from interfering in state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971) (stating “absent extraordinary circumstances” federal court should not enjoin state criminal proceedings). Skinner provides no reason for this Court to overlook the abstention principle. Nor does he allege any facts that warrant application of any exception to the Younger doctrine. See Hughes v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 377 F. 3d 1258, 1263 n.6 (11th Cir. 2004). Certificate of Appealability
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the “district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Because Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, the Court must now consider
Skinner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability, he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Petitioner Robert Allen Skinner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #5) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny any pending motion as moot,
enter judgment, and close this file.
3. Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this Ist day of September 2022.
= kok
JGHH E. STEELE
5 IOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA: FIMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Slack v. McDANIEL, 529 U.S. 473 (U.S. 2000)
- Braden v. 30TH Jud. Cir. Court OF Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (U.S. 1973)
- Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (U.S. 2004)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2005)